PDA

View Full Version : Seattle Has Intersest In Garland/Buehrle


Madvora
12-13-2006, 09:53 AM
Not real big news, but something to talk about, from sportsline.com in the rumor mill section.

The Mariners are expected to announce the signing of Miguel Batista but he’s not the top-end starter the club is seeking. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer suggested some possibilities include the Dodgers’ Brad Penny, the Rockies’ Jason Jennings, the A’s Dan Haren and the White Sox’s Jon Garland or Mark Buehrle. Oakland has said Haren is available for the right deal and Garland and Buehrle are only remote possibilities.
http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/MLB_SC-RUMOR

Here comes Ichiro Suzuki!

Ol' No. 2
12-13-2006, 09:56 AM
Not real big news, but something to talk about, from sportsline.com in the rumor mill section.


http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/MLB_SC-RUMOR

Here comes Ichiro Suzuki!I'm pretty sure there are 29 teams who would have an interest in Garland/Buehrle. But there's no way I'd trade another starter and leave a gaping hole in the rotation. Not even for Ichiro Suzuki.

chisoxmike
12-13-2006, 10:15 AM
This is my problem with trading Garcia to the Phillies for the two guys we got in return. The Sox should've heard offers and got so much more in return for Freddy. I wouldn't have a problem with Freddy for Ichiro, although unlikely to happen.

If teams are willing to blow their wads on .500 pithcers with 5+ ERAs, what are they willing to give for a pitcher that is better than anyone else on the market this offseason?

Madvora
12-13-2006, 10:16 AM
I'm pretty sure there are 29 teams who would have an interest in Garland/Buehrle. But there's no way I'd trade another starter and leave a gaping hole in the rotation. Not even for Ichiro Suzuki.
KW would have to have a backup plan in mind to deal another starter. I wonder what he was thinking during all of the Houston ramblings? Maybe he was close to landing a replacement.
You're 100% right, we'd be dead if we lost another starter.

Iguana775
12-13-2006, 10:17 AM
I wouldnt mind having Haren. But not sure if giving up either MB or Garland would be good.

oeo
12-13-2006, 10:22 AM
I wouldnt mind having Haren. But not sure if giving up either MB or Garland wouldnt be good.

That sentence confused me at first, as well, but it's just saying that Oakland said Haren is availabe and Buehrle/Garland are only remote possibilities (for the Mariners).

veeter
12-13-2006, 10:42 AM
Now that Kenny has traded one starter and supposedly almost another; Buehrle and Garland will be attached to every rumor from here on out. I'm sure neither will be moved.

caulfield12
12-13-2006, 10:51 AM
I wouldnt mind having Haren. But not sure if giving up either MB or Garland wouldnt be good.


Haren is NEAR peak value (even moreso than Garland), young, and affordable...but he will very quickly become unaffordable for the A's, so they have to come up with their own version of the Garcia and Jennings deals.

champagne030
12-13-2006, 10:54 AM
This is my problem with trading Garcia to the Phillies for the two guys we got in return. The Sox should've heard offers and got so much more in return for Freddy. I wouldn't have a problem with Freddy for Ichiro, although unlikely to happen.

If teams are willing to blow their wads on .500 pithcers with 5+ ERAs, what are they willing to give for a pitcher that is better than anyone else on the market this offseason?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/041031/041031_kerry_vmed_12p.h2.jpg

caulfield12
12-13-2006, 10:55 AM
If Seattle traded Ichiro for Garcia, about half of their remaining season ticket holders would go to the front office or box office and demand their money back, as well as filing "class action" lawsuits against Lincoln.

Slats
12-13-2006, 11:29 AM
This is my problem with trading Garcia to the Phillies for the two guys we got in return. The Sox should've heard offers and got so much more in return for Freddy. I wouldn't have a problem with Freddy for Ichiro, although unlikely to happen.

If teams are willing to blow their wads on .500 pithcers with 5+ ERAs, what are they willing to give for a pitcher that is better than anyone else on the market this offseason?

Best description of the Garcia deal that I've heard so far.

I want Mags back
12-13-2006, 11:38 AM
ahh, not gonna happen

oeo
12-13-2006, 11:52 AM
This is my problem with trading Garcia to the Phillies for the two guys we got in return. The Sox should've heard offers and got so much more in return for Freddy. I wouldn't have a problem with Freddy for Ichiro, although unlikely to happen.

If teams are willing to blow their wads on .500 pithcers with 5+ ERAs, what are they willing to give for a pitcher that is better than anyone else on the market this offseason?

Maybe teams didn't want Freddy because of the market.

Think of it this way...Freddy is a free agent after this year; if Gil Meche and Ted Lilly are getting a ton of money, Freddy will get it as well. If a team does not want to pay him after this year, why are they going to give up a lot for a one year rental?

I also think that the two guys we got in the trade are highly underrated around here.

fquaye149
12-13-2006, 11:57 AM
gee whiz d'ya think they'd give us jeremy reed for Buehrle straight up?

Think how much salary we'd cut PLUS get a future hofer

asboog
12-13-2006, 11:58 AM
I also think that the two guys we got in the trade are highly underrated around here.

I so hope you are right.

Jerksticks
12-13-2006, 01:11 PM
do you remember how you felt every time there was someone on first when Sweaty was pitchin? I think it was something like, "so is this guy gonna steal second on the first pitch or the second one...or maybe he will wait a few pitches...or maybe he.." STOLEN! It was pathetic. Thank God Freddy is gone. I woulda taken Borchard back just to get rid of Freddy. That's a stretch but we all gotta get off Freddy's nuts for what he did in '05. It's over and McCarthy will be a serioius upgrade.

caulfield12
12-13-2006, 01:58 PM
Floyd is because of his stats recently, and the fact they were compiled in the NL. Gio, because we gave him up once....but, as with the Alomars and Everett (or Rowand), if KW likes someone, he will try to bring them back, for better or worse. His "man-crushes" seem to have no expiration date.

Domeshot17
12-13-2006, 06:11 PM
I agree with OEO. This market HURT Freddy. If Freddy was signed 3 more years at under 10 per, we would have gotten a kings ransom. However, he is in a walk year, all it takes is 1 big season and he is commanding 15 plus a year for 5 years, is he worth it?

The more I let the Freddy trade simmer, the more I don't hate it. I think I would like it better if Floyd or Gio were a little more proven, because I think both could end up being a bust. However, this could end up being a steal for us for the one piece of the team that was more expendable than others.

Ol' No. 2
12-13-2006, 06:23 PM
I agree with OEO. This market HURT Freddy. If Freddy was signed 3 more years at under 10 per, we would have gotten a kings ransom. However, he is in a walk year, all it takes is 1 big season and he is commanding 15 plus a year for 5 years, is he worth it?

The more I let the Freddy trade simmer, the more I don't hate it. I think I would like it better if Floyd or Gio were a little more proven, because I think both could end up being a bust. However, this could end up being a steal for us for the one piece of the team that was more expendable than others.Exactly right, except if Freddy was signed for three more years at $10M per, the Sox wouldn't be trading him in the first place. The very reason he's trade bait is the reason his value isn't that high. People keep pointing to the high price of mediocre FA pitching thinking that increases Garcia's value, but in reality, it decreases it.

dickallen15
12-13-2006, 06:52 PM
This is my problem with trading Garcia to the Phillies for the two guys we got in return. The Sox should've heard offers and got so much more in return for Freddy. I wouldn't have a problem with Freddy for Ichiro, although unlikely to happen.

If teams are willing to blow their wads on .500 pithcers with 5+ ERAs, what are they willing to give for a pitcher that is better than anyone else on the market this offseason?
So you really think Kenny Williams didn't listen to any other teams offers for Garcia but Philadelphia's? I rip Kenny as much as anyone, but I guarantee he heard what everyone had to offer before pulling the trigger. Its amazing that a lot of people argue that wins is no way to determine a pitcher's effectiveness, then turn around and think Freddy is worth Ichiro and then some. Freddy admitted to a sore shoulder. He failed a WBC drug test, his fastball is between 86-89, he is signed for 1 season at $10 million. Players run on him at will. It was the time to deal him, and the White Sox came out alright. If just one of the pitchers pans out, it was a good trade, if both do, it was a great trade. Depending on what Freddy does, Gio and Floyd could both be busts and it could turn out fine. How they spend the extra savings is also a part of this deal, just like the Pods/Lee trade.

champagne030
12-13-2006, 07:27 PM
So you really think Kenny Williams didn't listen to any other teams offers for Garcia but Philadelphia's? I rip Kenny as much as anyone, but I guarantee he heard what everyone had to offer before pulling the trigger. Its amazing that a lot of people argue that wins is no way to determine a pitcher's effectiveness, then turn around and think Freddy is worth Ichiro and then some. Freddy admitted to a sore shoulder. He failed a WBC drug test, his fastball is between 86-89, he is signed for 1 season at $10 million. Players run on him at will. It was the time to deal him, and the White Sox came out alright. If just one of the pitchers pans out, it was a good trade, if both do, it was a great trade. Depending on what Freddy does, Gio and Floyd could both be busts and it could turn out fine. How they spend the extra savings is also a part of this deal, just like the Pods/Lee trade.

I think most of us knew FG was going to be gone. My issue is that KW said he wasn't under the gun to make a deal and then acts like he's under the gun. I'm sure that the Phillies offer was the best at the time, at least in his mind. The problem is that the market for FG would've gone up had he waited just a bit....hence the Astros deal for Jennings.

Ol' No. 2
12-13-2006, 07:56 PM
I think most of us knew FG was going to be gone. My issue is that KW said he wasn't under the gun to make a deal and then acts like he's under the gun. I'm sure that the Phillies offer was the best at the time, at least in his mind. The problem is that the market for FG would've gone up had he waited just a bit....hence the Astros deal for Jennings.But you can't assume the market would have gone up. Waiting could just as easily backfire if the guys you want get dealt to other teams. And anyway, I'm also not so sure KW didn't prefer Floyd and Gonzalez to the package the Astros traded to Colorado.

Edit: Have you considered the possibility that Purpura could have had Garcia but tried to hold out for a better deal (Garland) and wound up with Jennings? Holding out for a better deal is a risky business.

Grzegorz
12-13-2006, 08:26 PM
But you can't assume the market would have gone up. Waiting could just as easily backfire if the guys you want get dealt to other teams.

Exactly; there is no predicting this market.

I totally agree with dickallen15: it was time to deal Freddie Garcia. If one of the two pan out then it is a good deal.

champagne030
12-13-2006, 09:13 PM
But you can't assume the market would have gone up. Waiting could just as easily backfire if the guys you want get dealt to other teams. And anyway, I'm also not so sure KW didn't prefer Floyd and Gonzalez to the package the Astros traded to Colorado.

There were too many teams and too few free agents for it to backfire(IMO). I agree that Penny going on the market made me think twice, but the Yankees, Mets and Texas (off the top of my head) need pitching and only Zito remains as a FA. I saw where (one of the Chicago Rags) that KW inquired about Hughes and Sanchez or Humber and Duaner from the NY teams and was rebuffed. Well, it's a MAJOR step down from that to Gio/Floyd. Maybe KW is that high on Floyd, but he looks like a huge project. He doesn't have a decent 3rd pitch and he's lost a couple of MPH on his fastball. I love getting Gio back, but the Astros package looks better to me. Hopefully I'm wrong and Coop can do some magic on Floyd and he can be a decent starter in '08 and Gio continues progressing.

Ol' No. 2
12-13-2006, 09:35 PM
There were too many teams and too few free agents for it to backfire(IMO). I agree that Penny going on the market made me think twice, but the Yankees, Mets and Texas (off the top of my head) need pitching and only Zito remains as a FA. I saw where (one of the Chicago Rags) that KW inquired about Hughes and Sanchez or Humber and Duaner from the NY teams and was rebuffed. Well, it's a MAJOR step down from that to Gio/Floyd. Maybe KW is that high on Floyd, but he looks like a huge project. He doesn't have a decent 3rd pitch and he's lost a couple of MPH on his fastball. I love getting Gio back, but the Astros package looks better to me. Hopefully I'm wrong and Coop can do some magic on Floyd and he can be a decent starter in '08 and Gio continues progressing.Consider, though, that KW put a high priority on getting young pitching back and he got two top pitching prospects from Philly whereas he would have gotten only one from Houston (I'm not counting Bucholz as a top prospect). So while you might consider Hirsch to be better than Floyd, they're still prospects, which means no sure thing, and he probably felt his odds were better with two. Given what he wanted, he may well have felt that the package from Philly was a better deal (You don't have to agree with him. I'm just speculating on his possible reasoning.)

Also, Floyd was extensively studied by Sox scouts, so I'm pretty sure he felt strongly that he was a guy he wanted. I don't believe he just took a flier on him, hoping for Cooper magic. They must have thought they had identified a specific problem that they could fix.

Kenny and his scouts have a pretty good track record of identifying pitchers who had problems elsewhere that they could turn around. While people make jokes about Cooper magic, I think it has a lot more to do with good scouting, and finding pitchers that they can work with. As far as I'm concerned, they've earned the benefit of the doubt on finding diamonds in the rough.

champagne030
12-13-2006, 09:58 PM
Consider, though, that KW put a high priority on getting young pitching back and he got two top pitching prospects from Philly whereas he would have gotten only one from Houston (I'm not counting Bucholz as a top prospect). So while you might consider Hirsch to be better than Floyd, they're still prospects, which means no sure thing, and he probably felt his odds were better with two. Given what he wanted, he may well have felt that the package from Philly was a better deal (You don't have to agree with him. I'm just speculating on his possible reasoning.)

I'll buy that given that JR is on record as saying that it takes 2 or 3 great prospect pitchers for 1 to pan out.

Also, Floyd was extensively studied by Sox scouts, so I'm pretty sure he felt strongly that he was a guy he wanted. I don't believe he just took a flier on him, hoping for Cooper magic. They must have thought they had identified a specific problem that they could fix.

The problem I have with this is that he not only has questions about his stuff, but his mental makeup is a serious question too. I mean it's not like getting Jenks to mature a bit or getting Thornton to stay closed or to limit his stride. There's a lot to teach AND fix.

Kenny and his scouts have a pretty good track record of identifying pitchers who had problems elsewhere that they could turn around. While people make jokes about Cooper magic, I think it has a lot more to do with good scouting, and finding pitchers that they can work with. As far as I'm concerned, they've earned the benefit of the doubt on finding diamonds in the rough.

Obviously, I'm not high on Floyd, but I'd be less concerned if we had some legit option to go into the bullpen this season if he's not. We're counting on him being Riske at this point. I'd much rather have Riske in Chicago and letting Floyd work at Charlotte.

Ol' No. 2
12-13-2006, 10:10 PM
I'll buy that given that JR is on record as saying that it takes 2 or 3 great prospect pitchers for 1 to pan out.



The problem I have with this is that he not only has questions about his stuff, but his mental makeup is a serious question too. I mean it's not like getting Jenks to mature a bit or getting Thornton to stay closed or to limit his stride. There's a lot to teach AND fix.



Obviously, I'm not high on Floyd, but I'd be less concerned if we had some legit option to go into the bullpen this season if he's not. We're counting on him being Riske at this point. I'd much rather have Riske in Chicago and letting Floyd work at Charlotte.People questioned Garland's mental makeup, too. It's amazing how much a player's "mental makeup" improves once he starts winning. From everything I've read, Floyd has been getting pushed and pulled every which way by the Philly coaching staff. That can be disastrous for a young pitcher who's struggling. As I said before, the Sox scouts seem to think he's a good bet, and given their record of success, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. The system has come a long way from Todd Ritchie.

And I doubt very much that the opening day bullpen is going to look the way it does now. Kenny's not done.

Iguana775
12-13-2006, 10:20 PM
That sentence confused me at first, as well, but it's just saying that Oakland said Haren is availabe and Buehrle/Garland are only remote possibilities (for the Mariners).


LOL. that 'wouldnt' should have been a would. trading Mark and Garland would NOT be good. :)

DumpJerry
12-13-2006, 10:21 PM
I'm pretty sure there are 29 teams who would have an interest in Garland/Buehrle. But there's no way I'd trade another starter and leave a gaping hole in the rotation. Not even for Ichiro Suzuki.
I was thinking a similar thought, but it is only 28 teams. Jon and Mark are not mediocre enough for Hendry.

TheOldRoman
12-13-2006, 10:35 PM
ON2 is dead on with everything he said in this thread. At first, it looked like KW could have gotten more value, but he was taking a risk no matter what he did. Also, I agree that KW wanted Floyd and Gonzalez specifically. If he wanted those two guys above anything Houston or others were offering, that changes things. It is better to get the guys you want than to get quantity when talking about prospects. Most importantly, KW has earned the benefit of the doubt. He isn't batting 1.000, but he has repeatedly found diamonds in the rough.

ondafarm
12-13-2006, 11:48 PM
Floyd really sounds like a case of bad pitching coaching. Clearly the kid had a ton of talent and everyone could see it, he was drafted fourth. If Cooper is any good, and if the Sox are just looking for the kid to replace Riske, I think Kenny seriously upgraded the pen with this trade. I'm assuming Haeger goes in for long relief in place of McCarthy. Gonzalez just makes the trade a really good one for the Sox.

MRM
12-14-2006, 07:12 PM
Hopefully I'm wrong and Coop can do some magic on Floyd and he can be a decent starter in '08 and Gio continues progressing.

We might better be hoping he can be a decent starter in '07. It's already gotten out that Kenny was willing to move Garland after the Freddie deal and unless Buehrle is willing to sign an extension for reasonable dollars He'll be shopped, too. They aren't going to let a top notch *left handed* starting pitcher walk as a free agent with nothing in return but a sandwich round draft pick.

I'll be very surprised if the opening day rotation looks the same as it does right now.

Flight #24
12-14-2006, 08:10 PM
We might better be hoping he can be a decent starter in '07. It's already gotten out that Kenny was willing to move Garland after the Freddie deal and unless Buehrle is willing to sign an extension for reasonable dollars He'll be shopped, too. They aren't going to let a top notch *left handed* starting pitcher walk as a free agent with nothing in return but a sandwich round draft pick.

I'll be very surprised if the opening day rotation looks the same as it does right now.

I won't be. As currently slated, KW has 1 rotation slot opening up after 2007. He's got Floyd, Broadway, and possibly Gio ready to fill it. He'll also have $20M in payrol from losing Freddy & Buehrle (under your assumption that he walks). So he's not going to do something that compromises his ability to win in '07 because he's already reasonably set for '08.

Now if he gets a deal that lets him improve '08 without sacrificing '07, that's a different story. But I don't see it. Far more likely IMO that he tries to re-up Burls at a reasonable rate.

the1tab
12-14-2006, 08:28 PM
Kenny Williams would be crazy to not make a run at keeping Buehrle and Garland while dumping Vazquez's "can't make it in the AL" tail for some talent. Here's why:

Ted Lilly, Mark Mulder, and Barry Zito are going to get how much this offseason to be little-better-than-average southpaws, and the Sox have one on their staff right now that, even in a down year, is as good as any of those losers.

How much did Jason Marquis just get? Gil Meche? How much was Jason Jennings worth in a trade? Jon Garland, tied for the lead in wins the last two years in all of baseball, is worth how much?

You trade Vazquez, because he isn't part of the culture. You Let McCarthy start the year at the back end of the rotation and see if Haeger or Broadway's ready by May. You let Floyd begin the year as the 4 starter and move him to the pen when a kid's ready, or vice versa.

When will Kenny do something about how bad our outfield looks from Jermaine Dye's perspective?

the1tab
12-14-2006, 08:34 PM
Maybe we can get Jeremy Reed back from Seattle. That worked out well.

champagne030
12-14-2006, 09:03 PM
Kenny Williams would be crazy to not make a run at keeping Buehrle and Garland while dumping Vazquez's "can't make it in the AL" tail for some talent. Here's why:

Ted Lilly, Mark Mulder, and Barry Zito are going to get how much this offseason to be little-better-than-average southpaws, and the Sox have one on their staff right now that, even in a down year, is as good as any of those losers.

How much did Jason Marquis just get? Gil Meche? How much was Jason Jennings worth in a trade? Jon Garland, tied for the lead in wins the last two years in all of baseball, is worth how much?

You trade Vazquez, because he isn't part of the culture. You Let McCarthy start the year at the back end of the rotation and see if Haeger or Broadway's ready by May. You let Floyd begin the year as the 4 starter and move him to the pen when a kid's ready, or vice versa.

When will Kenny do something about how bad our outfield looks from Jermaine Dye's perspective?

WHAT??????? :puking:

Brian26
12-14-2006, 09:12 PM
You trade Vazquez, because he isn't part of the culture.

I've been saying this since August. Vazquez should be the next to go, and hopefully they can use the money to re-sign Buehrle and extend Garland. Vazquez doesn't have the killer instinct, as was proven in '06 in the easiest environment of all to win (5th starter on a World Championship team).

Craig Grebeck
12-14-2006, 09:38 PM
Oh, please Brian. He had a bad two month stretch and now he doesn't have the "killer instinct?" If he doesn't have it, then none of our guys do.

Brian26
12-14-2006, 10:00 PM
Oh, please Brian. He had a bad two month stretch and now he doesn't have the "killer instinct?" If he doesn't have it, then none of our guys do.

Buehrle and Garland are winners, world champions in fact. Vazquez is Kip Wells version 2006. Let him stand out there and piss in his pants again next year every time we hit the 6th inning.

Craig Grebeck
12-14-2006, 10:49 PM
Buehrle and Garland are winners, world champions in fact. Vazquez is Kip Wells version 2006. Let him stand out there and piss in his pants again next year every time we hit the 6th inning.
Good argument. You have no idea what you're talking about.

the1tab
12-15-2006, 07:42 AM
Oh, please Brian. He had a bad two month stretch and now he doesn't have the "killer instinct?" If he doesn't have it, then none of our guys do.

The Cubs finished in last place last year because Juan Pierre had a couple bad months, Jacque Jones had a few bad months, Matt Murton had a couple bad months, Ryan Dempster had three stretches of a couple bad months...

The problem that everyone w/ the rose colored glasses on the south side seems to have is that, in 2005, there were guys that picked each other up so no more than one person was having a bad week.

Freddy's gone. If you move Garland and/or Buehrle, you have an unproven 23 year old, a guy that hasn't been clutch since he was in MONTREAL, where clutch was defined as ordering in proper French, and Jose Contreras for a rotation. Nobody there can pick up Thome's jock, much less each other. That's why you let Vazquez go and you keep guys that have busted rough streaks for each other before.

PS - maybe Jose Contreras can smuggle over a couple backup infielders and a bullpen for Seattle to go w/ their starting 2nd baseman. HAHA.

Craig Grebeck
12-15-2006, 01:06 PM
The Cubs finished in last place last year because Juan Pierre had a couple bad months, Jacque Jones had a few bad months, Matt Murton had a couple bad months, Ryan Dempster had three stretches of a couple bad months...

The problem that everyone w/ the rose colored glasses on the south side seems to have is that, in 2005, there were guys that picked each other up so no more than one person was having a bad week.

Freddy's gone. If you move Garland and/or Buehrle, you have an unproven 23 year old, a guy that hasn't been clutch since he was in MONTREAL, where clutch was defined as ordering in proper French, and Jose Contreras for a rotation. Nobody there can pick up Thome's jock, much less each other. That's why you let Vazquez go and you keep guys that have busted rough streaks for each other before.

PS - maybe Jose Contreras can smuggle over a couple backup infielders and a bullpen for Seattle to go w/ their starting 2nd baseman. HAHA.
Clutch clutch clutch clutch. Clutch is defined as pitching league average the year after a career year. Clutch is getting absolutely hammered every time out (proving that the league can catch up to you). Clutch is being able to pick up Thome's jock. How does one bust a rough streak for the other? Enlighten me, please.

Britt Burns
12-15-2006, 01:44 PM
The Cubs finished in last place last year because Juan Pierre had a couple bad months, Jacque Jones had a few bad months, Matt Murton had a couple bad months, Ryan Dempster had three stretches of a couple bad months...



The Cubs finished in last place because they suck. Non-sucky teams expect and plan for (i.e. don't sign, or at least don't make featured players) guys like Pierre, Jones, and Dempster, who they know will have bad stretches...in Dempster's case, pretty much his whole career.

Likewise, the Sox didn't miss the postseason because of Vasquez's rough stretch. It was part of a larger problem including inconsistent pitching and some terrible team hitting slumps.

the1tab
12-15-2006, 03:08 PM
I would define "clutch" as not having 30,000 sweating just because you threw a pitch in the 5th inning or later.

Vazquez sucks. He was good in the no pressure world of Montral and hasn't done a lick of a decent thing in how many years since?? He was mediocre in New York, he was down right scary at times for the White Sox, and now we're talking about trading the backbone of the rotation from before we were champions instead of a guy that has done nothing but wear out our bullpen?

Think about it Craigers... seriously...

caulfield12
12-15-2006, 03:23 PM
I would define "clutch" as not having 30,000 sweating just because you threw a pitch in the 5th inning or later.

Vazquez sucks. He was good in the no pressure world of Montral and hasn't done a lick of a decent thing in how many years since?? He was mediocre in New York, he was down right scary at times for the White Sox, and now we're talking about trading the backbone of the rotation from before we were champions instead of a guy that has done nothing but wear out our bullpen?

Think about it Craigers... seriously...


So you'd sign Buehrle for 4 years at $15 million per season RIGHT NOW?

Are you sure?

That's an awfully big gamble, it doesn't work out (Buehrle is the same or worse) and this franchise is stuck in neutral for 2-3 years.

the1tab
12-15-2006, 08:37 PM
U would make Buerle an offer at the All Star Break for 3 years somewhere between Lilly and Zito money, because he frankly deserves it. I'm not saying Buehrle is Tom Glavine, but Tommy boy didn't have a Cy Young winner every year in Atlanta, but they stuck with him and he rewarded them w/ solid leadership and winning. However, I would extend the offer at the break based on his first half performance, giving him time to take it or leave it and you can still move him if he decides to not take it.

Garland is a tougher call tha Buehrle because righties that can win 15 are a dime a dozen... well, maybe $50 million each because of the Cubs jacking the market thru the roof. But righties you can trade for and build thru the farm. Lefties as solid as Buehrle aren't easy to come by, so you keep him around.

caulfield12
12-15-2006, 09:04 PM
U would make Buerle an offer at the All Star Break for 3 years somewhere between Lilly and Zito money, because he frankly deserves it. I'm not saying Buehrle is Tom Glavine, but Tommy boy didn't have a Cy Young winner every year in Atlanta, but they stuck with him and he rewarded them w/ solid leadership and winning. However, I would extend the offer at the break based on his first half performance, giving him time to take it or leave it and you can still move him if he decides to not take it.

Garland is a tougher call tha Buehrle because righties that can win 15 are a dime a dozen... well, maybe $50 million each because of the Cubs jacking the market thru the roof. But righties you can trade for and build thru the farm. Lefties as solid as Buehrle aren't easy to come by, so you keep him around.


The question is, is Buerhle going to have a Hall of Fame career like Glavine? That's really pushing it at this point in his career, maybe...but, once again, if he's not the same pitcher, you have the Mike Hampton contract on your hands and very limited from a financial flexibility standpoint to maneuver.

nodiggity59
12-15-2006, 09:40 PM
Good argument. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Say what you want, but Javy's slowed pace on the mound, posture, and nervous gestures after the 5th, especially when runners reach base, curiously correlate to his consistent implosion. I don't think it's a stretch to say he has mental problems finishing off starts, as Garland did pre 05.

caulfield12
12-15-2006, 10:07 PM
Say what you want, but Javy's slowed pace on the mound, posture, and nervous gestures after the 5th, especially when runners reach base, curiously correlate to his consistent implosion. I don't think it's a stretch to say he has mental problems finishing off starts, as Garland did pre 05.

Yes, and he made a lot of progress fighting through that his final two months.

Craig Grebeck
12-15-2006, 11:47 PM
That and he is absolutely filthy and has good control. And he is here for two more years. Mark has mediocre stuff and will more than likely not be here beyond this season. Who would you shop?

Brian26
12-16-2006, 12:09 AM
That and he is absolutely filthy and has good control. And he is here for two more years. Mark has mediocre stuff and will more than likely not be here beyond this season. Who would you shop?

These comments are so misguided.

Pitchers who have good "stuff" don't always succeed.

"Stuff" is an asset, but it's not the only quality that makes a successful pitcher. And, on its own, it won't win a championship. You need to consider other qualities, in addition to intangibles. Buehrle is a battler, an intelligent pitcher, a great teammate, the heart and soul of the franchise for the past six years, and most importantly he's a winner.

Your argument is absolute nonsense. If there's any pitcher on this staff that should be signed for 4 more years, it's Buehrle. Not only will he battle his heart out and give you quality starts, but he'll make the other guys around him better through his leadership.

Vazquez has had opportunities to succeed on several different stages, and he's consistently failed miserably.

Craig Grebeck
12-16-2006, 12:20 AM
These comments are so misguided.

Pitchers who have good "stuff" don't always succeed.

"Stuff" is an asset, but it's not the only quality that makes a successful pitcher. And, on its own, it won't win a championship. You need to consider other qualities, in addition to intangibles. Buehrle is a battler, an intelligent pitcher, a great teammate, the heart and soul of the franchise for the past six years, and most importantly he's a winner.

Your argument is absolute nonsense. If there's any pitcher on this staff that should be signed for 4 more years, it's Buehrle. Not only will he battle his heart out and give you quality starts, but he'll make the other guys around him better through his leadership.

Vazquez has had opportunities to succeed on several different stages, and he's consistently failed miserably.
What the hell makes a pitcher a battler? This is the same misguided, cliched thinking that is used by hacks like Joe Morgan and Hawk Harrelson. Obviously stuff isn't the only quality you need, but it means a hell of a lot more than a fan's opinion on a pitcher's ability to battle and be intelligent. Yes, Mark has been a good to great pitcher, but being opposed to shopping him because he is the "heart and soul" is ridiculous. If he gets back 2 young studs, you pull the trigger.

Also, Mark's spike wasn't a result of bad luck, his BABIP numbers are in line.

fquaye149
12-16-2006, 12:48 AM
What the hell makes a pitcher a battler? This is the same misguided, cliched thinking that is used by hacks like Joe Morgan and Hawk Harrelson. Obviously stuff isn't the only quality you need, but it means a hell of a lot more than a fan's opinion on a pitcher's ability to battle and be intelligent. Yes, Mark has been a good to great pitcher, but being opposed to shopping him because he is the "heart and soul" is ridiculous. If he gets back 2 young studs, you pull the trigger.

Also, Mark's spike wasn't a result of bad luck, his BABIP numbers are in line.

bull****....if you can't have a player on your team that is untradeable because he is deeply rooted in the makeup of a team you might as well follow ****ing Golf or something...I don't know...wherever loyalty doesn't matter.

I'll tell you this: I feel like Buehrle being a Sox is much more important to me (and more importantly: THIS TEAM) than any other player. And that, of course, includes Konerko (the only player to be around as long as Mark)

Brian26
12-16-2006, 09:14 AM
What the hell makes a pitcher a battler? This is the same misguided, cliched thinking that is used by hacks like Joe Morgan and Hawk Harrelson. Obviously stuff isn't the only quality you need, but it means a hell of a lot more than a fan's opinion on a pitcher's ability to battle and be intelligent. Yes, Mark has been a good to great pitcher, but being opposed to shopping him because he is the "heart and soul" is ridiculous. If he gets back 2 young studs, you pull the trigger.

Also, Mark's spike wasn't a result of bad luck, his BABIP numbers are in line.

The Sox used to have this guy Floyd Bannister. Based on your profile, you would have been 8 months old when they signed him, so maybe you don't remember him. He had amazing stuff, just like Vazquez. He had every reason to be successful and a #1 SP, but he never rose about mediocrity because he had a lack of mental toughness and wasn't a battler.

Vazquez=Floyd Bannister
Buehrle=Catfish Hunter

Don't forget the intangibles, ie Buehrle talking to Jenks after WS Game 2 to tell him they'd pick him up and not to worry.

tacosalbarojas
12-19-2006, 12:58 PM
The Sox used to have this guy Floyd Bannister. Based on your profile, you would have been 8 months old when they signed him, so maybe you don't remember him. He had amazing stuff, just like Vazquez. He had every reason to be successful and a #1 SP, but he never rose about mediocrity because he had a lack of mental toughness and wasn't a battler.

Vazquez=Floyd Bannister
Buehrle=Catfish Hunter

Don't forget the intangibles, ie Buehrle talking to Jenks after WS Game 2 to tell him they'd pick him up and not to worry.
Freddy Garcia=Mike Cuellar?

spiffie
12-19-2006, 01:55 PM
bull****....if you can't have a player on your team that is untradeable because he is deeply rooted in the makeup of a team you might as well follow ****ing Golf or something...I don't know...wherever loyalty doesn't matter.

I'll tell you this: I feel like Buehrle being a Sox is much more important to me (and more importantly: THIS TEAM) than any other player. And that, of course, includes Konerko (the only player to be around as long as Mark)
When I was 11 years old the Chicago White Sox traded Harold Baines. At that time I thought I could never care about baseball again, because they traded the heart and soul of that team, and the guy who WAS the White Sox to me.

The next year the Sox brought up a young rookie named Frank Thomas. For the next 15 years he was the face of that team for me. Even through the injuries. I never ever wanted to see Frank on another team.

Last year I cheered when Frank hit the HR in his first at-bat upon returning. I cheered even louder when the Sox won the game.

I like Buehrle. He's one of my favorite players. But if the opportunity to improve the team that I have followed as long as I can remember comes along, and it means no more Buehrle, I am totally fine with that.

1917
12-19-2006, 02:29 PM
When I was 11 years old the Chicago White Sox traded Harold Baines. At that time I thought I could never care about baseball again, because they traded the heart and soul of that team, and the guy who WAS the White Sox to me.

The next year the Sox brought up a young rookie named Frank Thomas. For the next 15 years he was the face of that team for me. Even through the injuries. I never ever wanted to see Frank on another team.

Last year I cheered when Frank hit the HR in his first at-bat upon returning. I cheered even louder when the Sox won the game.

I like Buehrle. He's one of my favorite players. But if the opportunity to improve the team that I have followed as long as I can remember comes along, and it means no more Buehrle, I am totally fine with that.

I agree 100% with you on the Baines issue, I felt the same way. The difference between now and then is that when we traded Baines, we were down right awful...now we are a year removed from the World Series and we still have talent to win another, but it seems we are looking to win the series in 2010 instead of 2007.

spiffie
12-19-2006, 02:42 PM
I agree 100% with you on the Baines issue, I felt the same way. The difference between now and then is that when we traded Baines, we were down right awful...now we are a year removed from the World Series and we still have talent to win another, but it seems we are looking to win the series in 2010 instead of 2007.
What have we done that suggests that? We traded a guy in his final year in order to put the single best prospect in our entire organization into the rotation. Yes, I think KW should have gotten more for Freddy, but I don't see that as a problem this year. He traded Gload for a guy who hopefully can help us this year. If anything my problems with the Sox moves this offseason have been that they instead of looking forward to 2010 keep looking back to October of 2005, hence the continued employment of Uribe and Podsednik. I have issues with what the Sox have done, but I don't see them as having done anything as of yet to suggest they are more worried about future years than this year. Just a lot of media reports that never come to fruition.

Ol' No. 2
12-19-2006, 03:14 PM
What the hell makes a pitcher a battler? This is the same misguided, cliched thinking that is used by hacks like Joe Morgan and Hawk Harrelson. Obviously stuff isn't the only quality you need, but it means a hell of a lot more than a fan's opinion on a pitcher's ability to battle and be intelligent. Yes, Mark has been a good to great pitcher, but being opposed to shopping him because he is the "heart and soul" is ridiculous. If he gets back 2 young studs, you pull the trigger.

Also, Mark's spike wasn't a result of bad luck, his BABIP numbers are in line.I just invented the Ability to Battle Losses Effectively (ABLE) index. Does that make it real? Or do only BABIB and isoFOOZIX count?

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 04:09 PM
I just invented the Ability to Battle Losses Effectively (ABLE) index. Does that make it real? Or do only BABIB and isoFOOZIX count?

While I think Metrics are relatively valuable for hitters (though they don't consider any human factor) I think they are almost utterly worthless for pitching.

There's so many things to consider when you look at a pitcher, including pitch count, pitching with the lead, pitching from behind, pitching to win a game, pitching to save the bullpen in a blowout, pitching after a ****ty first inning, pitching through errors, and so on that it's almost impossible to come up with a statistic to predict how a particular pitcher will perform.

Ol' No. 2
12-19-2006, 05:36 PM
While I think Metrics are relatively valuable for hitters (though they don't consider any human factor) I think they are almost utterly worthless for pitching.

There's so many things to consider when you look at a pitcher, including pitch count, pitching with the lead, pitching from behind, pitching to win a game, pitching to save the bullpen in a blowout, pitching after a ****ty first inning, pitching through errors, and so on that it's almost impossible to come up with a statistic to predict how a particular pitcher will perform.I'm not sure I would go that far, but philosophically, I agree. A hitter might get 500 AB over the course of a season and play in 150 games. A starting pitcher appears in fewer than 35 and few relievers log more than about 70 IP, so pitching statistics are more vulnerable to sampling errors.

But the biggest problem with stats is that people overinterpret them. They tell only a part of the story. Ultimately, you have to understand what you're seeing, and that doesn't come from a calculator. I actually heard Voros McCracken say he doesn't watch games because he doesn't want his judgement to be biased by what he sees.:rolleyes:

Jerksticks
12-19-2006, 05:38 PM
I just invented the Ability to Battle Losses Effectively (ABLE) index. Does that make it real? Or do only BABIB and isoFOOZIX count?

What about the AWAGS stat.

Ability to Win All Games Started

Of course this could be seen as winning percentage, but no. This measures the ABILITY to have a good wining percentage. On a scale of 1-7 Buehrle has a 4 and Garland has a 6.3
Discuss.

spiffie
12-20-2006, 09:40 AM
I'm not sure I would go that far, but philosophically, I agree. A hitter might get 500 AB over the course of a season and play in 150 games. A starting pitcher appears in fewer than 35 and few relievers log more than about 70 IP, so pitching statistics are more vulnerable to sampling errors.

But the biggest problem with stats is that people overinterpret them. They tell only a part of the story. Ultimately, you have to understand what you're seeing, and that doesn't come from a calculator. I actually heard Voros McCracken say he doesn't watch games because he doesn't want his judgement to be biased by what he sees.:rolleyes:
Honestly, I have no problem with that last line as long as someone like that isn't making all the decisions about a player. Think how many people inside of baseball can be seduced by a guy with a beautiful swing, or a long smooth stride in the outfield, or the ability to hit the ball a ton in batting practice. How many people got suckered in by Joe Borchard because of physical potential and the immortal LTP? I don't know if one needs to be completely isolated from the game, but the idea of having some people who are not incubated in the baseball culture, and trained to look for certain long-held to be positive attributes as predictors of success seems only logical for a business as large as a major league baseball organization. That's why you hire Voros McCracken as an advisor, and not as GM.

As for pitching stats, I tend not to concern myself too much with single year stats unless something seems out of character for a pitcher, then I think you have to ask questions. Like with Buehrle last year. His BABIP was not really much different, but he was getting hammered instead of dinked. Why were the hits off him suddenly much harder and likely to be for extra bases? Fatigue? Mechanics? Injury? But in general, to me it's trends. And the fact that half the time pitching seems to defy any reasonable analysis or prediction (Esteban Loaiza?!).

Flight #24
12-20-2006, 10:10 AM
Honestly, I have no problem with that last line as long as someone like that isn't making all the decisions about a player. Think how many people inside of baseball can be seduced by a guy with a beautiful swing, or a long smooth stride in the outfield, or the ability to hit the ball a ton in batting practice. How many people got suckered in by Joe Borchard because of physical potential and the immortal LTP? I don't know if one needs to be completely isolated from the game, but the idea of having some people who are not incubated in the baseball culture, and trained to look for certain long-held to be positive attributes as predictors of success seems only logical for a business as large as a major league baseball organization. That's why you hire Voros McCracken as an advisor, and not as GM.



It's the same thing. Either you as an individual use "both sides" of the equation (stats & scouts), or you hire guys who do each and consider both their inputs. The point IMO is that McCracken is pretty blind if he really thinks he can completely ignore one side (or the other).

caulfield12
12-20-2006, 10:26 AM
I'm not sure I would go that far, but philosophically, I agree. A hitter might get 500 AB over the course of a season and play in 150 games. A starting pitcher appears in fewer than 35 and few relievers log more than about 70 IP, so pitching statistics are more vulnerable to sampling errors.

But the biggest problem with stats is that people overinterpret them. They tell only a part of the story. Ultimately, you have to understand what you're seeing, and that doesn't come from a calculator. I actually heard Voros McCracken say he doesn't watch games because he doesn't want his judgement to be biased by what he sees.:rolleyes:

This is essentially the whole Beane/Ricciardi/DiPodesta versus Grady Fuson argument in Moneyball. It has to be a combination of both factors, without over-relying upon one or the other.

Just like a mutual fund that's set up to be run by metrics and computers can be blind to "market factors" a human manager like Bill Nygren or Bill Miller would intuitively "feel" or sense...same thing with baseball.

The computer can pick up an "outlier" like Youkilis or Hatteberg or Swisher who might be undervalued, but it's just ONE tool.

spiffie
12-20-2006, 10:28 AM
It's the same thing. Either you as an individual use "both sides" of the equation (stats & scouts), or you hire guys who do each and consider both their inputs. The point IMO is that McCracken is pretty blind if he really thinks he can completely ignore one side (or the other).
I prefer mostly specialists with just a few decision makers to a group of multi-taskers. To me, there is enough information to be gleaned from stats to make a certain sort of assessment about a player that will be valid no matter if we've ever seen the guy or not. And then there's the assessments of those who watch the guys. If I'm running things I want someone who has absolutely no romantic attachment at all to baseball or its players involved and in my ear.

maurice
12-20-2006, 11:42 AM
If I'm McCracken's boss, I don't want him watching games either. I'd leave that to traditional scouts who understand what they're seeing.

Tragg
12-21-2006, 08:41 PM
I actually heard Voros McCracken say he doesn't watch games because he doesn't want his judgement to be biased by what he sees.:rolleyes:
LOL
Voros - I haven't heard that name in a while.
He's like a sabre - guy, right? Sox fan. Got a job with some team as I recall.

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2006, 10:17 PM
LOL
Voros - I haven't heard that name in a while.
He's like a sabre - guy, right? Sox fan. Got a job with some team as I recall.IIRC, the guy had an office job of some kind and was living in his parents' basement (literally). He came up with the DIPS based on the dubious premise that all a pitcher can influence is whether a ball is hit or not, i.e. he has no influence on where or how far it was hit. I guess ground ball pitchers are figments of our imaginations. No one could disprove this assumption statistically, so, of course, it must be right. He later got a job as a consultant with the Red Sox.

Tragg
12-21-2006, 10:25 PM
IIRC, the guy had an office job of some kind and was living in his parents' basement (literally). He came up with the DIPS based on the dubious premise that all a pitcher can influence is whether a ball is hit or not, i.e. he has no influence on where or how far it was hit. I guess ground ball pitchers are figments of our imaginations. No one could disprove this assumption statistically, so, of course, it must be right. He later got a job as a consultant with the Red Sox.
Thanks

When I first got on the internet in the late 90s and was looking for some Sox discussion, I ran across some news-group Sox thing on which he posted a lot. I remember I lost the bookmark/location and never could find it again. (I thought Voros was a fake name - kinda like Tragg). Now that you mention it, I remember his theory was that strikeouts are the best way to measure pitcher effectiveness. (yet they are irrelevant re a hitter - never did understand that and still don't).
It's neat that he got a job in baseball, though.
I

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2006, 11:15 PM
Thanks

When I first got on the internet in the late 90s and was looking for some Sox discussion, I ran across some news-group Sox thing on which he posted a lot. I remember I lost the bookmark/location and never could find it again. (I thought Voros was a fake name - kinda like Tragg). Now that you mention it, I remember his theory was that strikeouts are the best way to measure pitcher effectiveness. (yet they are irrelevant re a hitter - never did understand that and still don't).
It's neat that he got a job in baseball, though.
IIt is a fake name. His given name is Robert.

Craig Grebeck
12-21-2006, 11:54 PM
I just invented the Ability to Battle Losses Effectively (ABLE) index. Does that make it real? Or do only BABIB and isoFOOZIX count?
Nice thread hijack. Instead of arguing yet again with you and your band of self righteous intangibleheads about the values of facts and statistics v. anecdotal evidence and memories, I'll just say yet again that mocking the two simplest stats (hell, they aren't even sabermetric) makes you look like a complete fool. Just wondering, have you ever read anything about sabermetrics/stats? The way your petty insults and jabs are constructed, it sounds like you have never even given it a chance.

spiffie
12-22-2006, 09:45 AM
He came up with the DIPS based on the dubious premise that all a pitcher can influence is whether a ball is hit or not, i.e. he has no influence on where or how far it was hit. I guess ground ball pitchers are figments of our imaginations. No one could disprove this assumption statistically, so, of course, it must be right.
Just to point out that not all stat-folks agree, there is a very long, very stats-oriented look at McCracken's concept of DIPS, with a ridiculous amount of information that serves to challenge his theories at Diamond Mind. (http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/ipavg2.htm)

Of course the fun part comes when he points out the pitchers who, on average, really are the best at inducing outs on balls in play from opposing batters. Your all-time king turns out to be...Charlie Hough. With a bunch of other knucklers coming in highly.

maurice
12-22-2006, 11:46 AM
Just wondering, have you ever read anything about sabermetrics/stats?

Given the fact that he knows Voros McCracken's given name and the meaning of "DIPS," I strongly suspect that the answer to this question is "yes."

Ol' No. 2
12-22-2006, 12:43 PM
Just to point out that not all stat-folks agree, there is a very long, very stats-oriented look at McCracken's concept of DIPS, with a ridiculous amount of information that serves to challenge his theories at Diamond Mind. (http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/ipavg2.htm)

Of course the fun part comes when he points out the pitchers who, on average, really are the best at inducing outs on balls in play from opposing batters. Your all-time king turns out to be...Charlie Hough. With a bunch of other knucklers coming in highly.When McCracken first proposed it, it was very controversial. Even stat-geeks didn't believe it. They all tried to find a flaw in the argument but couldn't, so most of them became converts, including Bill James. But they all forgot one of the most basic logical maxims: absence of proof is not proof of absence. Just because they couldn't figure out how to disprove it doesn't mean it's true.

Most students of the game know instinctively that it's wrong, but that requires actually watching the game being played. You don't get that staring at numbers on your computer screen.

maurice
12-22-2006, 01:00 PM
I thought that the original DIPS analysis had sample-size problems and that a broader pool of data undermined some of his original conclusions.
:?:

In any event, your better stat-heads realize that everything in the world cannot be measured. Only a very great fool assumes that the unmeasurable always = luck. Unfortunately, these fools spend a lot of time on the Internet.

Ol' No. 2
12-22-2006, 01:34 PM
I thought that the original DIPS analysis had sample-size problems and that a broader pool of data undermined some of his original conclusions.
:?:

In any event, your better stat-heads realize that everything in the world cannot be measured. Only a very great fool assumes that the unmeasurable always = luck. Unfortunately, these fools spend a lot of time on the Internet.I stopped following this argument a while ago. Bickering about baseball among guys like McCracken who don't even watch baseball because it might bias their interpretation carries no fascination for me.

spiffie
12-22-2006, 01:37 PM
When McCracken first proposed it, it was very controversial. Even stat-geeks didn't believe it. They all tried to find a flaw in the argument but couldn't, so most of them became converts, including Bill James. But they all forgot one of the most basic logical maxims: absence of proof is not proof of absence. Just because they couldn't figure out how to disprove it doesn't mean it's true.

Most students of the game know instinctively that it's wrong, but that requires actually watching the game being played. You don't get that staring at numbers on your computer screen.
See here is where I feel the middle road is the accurate one. I would say that most pitchers often are unable to influence the quality of the hit. The very good pitchers, or the pitchers who because of their natual pitching style (knucklers who throw soft balls with erratic motion) can tend to induce less well-hit balls than most pitchers. However, I think the argument that most of the time a pitcher is generally at the mercy of the hitter if the hitter is able to get a bat on it seems logical from having seen a few hundred thousand at-bats with my own eyes.

Ol' No. 2
12-22-2006, 01:49 PM
See here is where I feel the middle road is the accurate one. I would say that most pitchers often are unable to influence the quality of the hit. The very good pitchers, or the pitchers who because of their natual pitching style (knucklers who throw soft balls with erratic motion) can tend to induce less well-hit balls than most pitchers. However, I think the argument that most of the time a pitcher is generally at the mercy of the hitter if the hitter is able to get a bat on it seems logical from having seen a few hundred thousand at-bats with my own eyes.I don't think anyone would suggest that a pitcher can "control" where the ball is hit with any accuracy. Whether a grounder goes through the hole or right at a fielder is mostly luck. But they do have some control in how hard the ball is hit and whether it's more likely to be hit on the ground or in the air. These have enormous effects on the outcome.